Implementation of Pedagogical Innovations and Its Effects in Elementary Schools in Poland

Author(s):

Barbara Dudel(submitting)Marta Kowalczuk-Walędziak(presenting)Małgorzata Głoskowska-Sołdatow

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 04 A, Curriculum Change in Schools and Classrooms

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

09:00-10:30

Room:

NM-A106

Chair:

Mark Priestley

Contribution

Recently, there has been growing interest in innovativeness, not only in the field of education, but also in social and economic spheres. According to many documents, policy papers and reports of the European Union, innovations are not only the key to economic, cultural or scientific development of particular regions and countries but also to individuals’ development (e.g. European Comission 2014; EURO-CASE 2015). Consequently, the governments of many European countries allocate more and more financial resources for activities aimed at supporting and developing the innovative potential of individuals, social groups or enterprises (Brown et al. 2012; Hall and Lerner 2009). It has also been suggested that a significant role in the development of individuals’ innovative potential can be played by school and teachers (Fullan 2001; OECD 2011; Vieluf et al. 2012). Some educational reports even point out that innovativeness should be part of the necessary competencies of a teacher (OECD 2011; Vieluf et al. 2012) due to the positive relationship between innovative teaching and learning and students’ outcomes.

In the recent years, there is a growing number of studies focusing on factors, conditions, barriers and opportunities of effective implementation of innovations in schools at different levels, and educational changes in general (Fullan 2001; Kinsler and Gamble 2002; Przyborowska 2013) or specifically related to innovative classroom practices with ICT (Nachmias et al. 2004; Varis 2007; Wong et al. 2008). Still, little is known about the implementation of innovations by elementary school teachers and its effects on their working environment, especially in the Polish context (Szefler and Sobieszczyk 2000). Paradoxically, though, elementary school teachers in Poland implement the highest number of innovations in Polish schools (Dudel et al. 2014). Besides, according to the Report on elementary education in Poland (2015), experiences and skills acquired at the elementary school level provide the basis for developing the individual’s general human capital, useful later in their future education and life.

On the other hand, in Poland, just like in other European countries, significantly greater interest in the implementation of innovations by schools and teachers has been noticeable in recent years (Przyborowska 2013; Davidova and Kokina, 2007; Zdybel 2015). Some authors even indicate that there is overproduction of pedagogical innovations in Polish educational system (Giza 2012). On the one hand, this overproduction gives hope for positive changes in Polish education, but on the other hand it leads to a grounded need for a more critical look at the quality of innovative solutions in education (Giza 2012). Our previous research (Dudel et al. 2014) indicates that many innovations implemented in Polish schools have no strong theoretical foundation, do not meet the criteria for innovativeness, do not fit the vision of development or the school or region, and as a result do not contribute to school improvement. Therefore, it was important for us to carry out a study concerning motivations for and effects of implementing innovations by early education teachers.

This paper is part of a larger research project carried out in Poland, whose objective is to provide in-depth understanding of elementary school teachers’ motivations, experiences and perception of implementing pedagogical innovations. The project encompassed teachers who have implemented or are implementing innovations in elementary schools in Poland. This paper presents and discusses the results of research obtained from 12 elementary school teachers who completed the implementation of innovations in the previous school year. We particularly focus on motivations for the implementation of pedagogical innovations by elementary school teachers and the effects of this activity in their working environment.

Method

This project is based on qualitative methodology, involving semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and document analysis (analysis of innovation projects) from 32 elementary school teachers who have completed or are still implementing pedagogical innovations in their schools. All the interviewed teachers had obtained the approvals for innovative activity in their schools required by Polish law on education (approval from the principal and the teachers’ board). This project specifically aims at finding the answers to the following research questions: What are the motivations for elementary school teachers taking up innovative activity? What factors facilitate their innovative activity? What factors inhibit their innovative activity? What are the effects of implementing pedagogical innovations in their school environment? The paper presents data gathered by means of interviews with 12 elementary school teachers who completed the implementation of innovations in their classes in the previous year. All the participants were females, 7 of them worked at big city schools, 3 at schools in towns below 30 thousand residents, and 2 teachers, at rural schools. Their work experience ranged from 2 to 20 years. The interview guidelines were organized in themes as follows: motivations for implementing pedagogical innovations, the phase of planning innovations, the phase of carrying out innovations, and the phase of evaluating the implementation. With all participant teachers, information was collected regarding: gender and age, years of teaching experience, and the territorial characteristics of their workplaces. The interviews were conducted by researchers at the participants’ workplaces and audio recorded; they lasted from 40 to 70 minutes. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and a qualitative content analysis of data (Mayring, 2000) was conducted.

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary findings of the research show that: (1) the participating elementary school teachers pointed out varied motivations for implementing innovations at school, from extrinsic, altruistic, to intrinsic ones. They reported such motives as: suggestions and expectations of the school principal, the response to reforms of education, the need to do something more than the curriculum, professional challenges, personal fulfilment, enhancing students’ learning outcomes, and a change from boredom and school routine. (2) The effects of innovations mentioned by the participant teachers refer to (a) them as professionals (b) their students, and (c) their schools. Regarding the effects of implementing innovations on teachers as professionals, they reported mainly broadening/enhancing their teaching experience, personal fulfilment, confirming their pedagogical competencies, and optimism/belief that something can be done at their schools. Regarding the students, the participants admitted that after the completion of implementing innovations they could see among their students more critical thinking, greater interest in participation in new, non-standard educational situations, more critical attitudes to the tasks offered them, pride from participation in something that had never been done before at the school, higher self-evaluation and self-esteem, higher engagement in autonomously solving complex tasks, and the will to collaborate with classmates, which in general resulted in better test results. Regarding the effects the whole schools achieved as a result of implementing their pedagogical innovations, the participants mainly pointed out: enhancing the school’s educational offer, improving the school’s position in educational rankings and external evaluation, greater interest on the part of parents of potential students from out of the catchment area, and encouraging other fellow teachers to take part in team work. Based on the obtained study results, the conclusions and recommendations for teachers implementing educational innovations in contemporary elementary schools are being formulated and discussed.

References

Brown, J.R., Martinsson, G., and B.C. Petersen. 2012. Do financing constraints matter for R&D?. European Economic Review, 56 (8): 1512-1529. Davidova, J., and I. Kokina. 2007. Teachers' Views on Innovative Processes in Schools of Latvia. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 8: 25-36. Dudel, B., M. Kowalczuk-Walędziak, K.M. Łogwiniuk, K. Szorc and U. Wróblewska. 2014. Innowacje w teorii i praktyce pedagogicznej (na przykładzie województwa podlaskiego). Białystok: FCTWiISP. Fullan, M. 2001. The New Meaning of Educational Change. 3rd Edition. New York: Teachers College Press. Giza, T. 2011. Innowacyjność jako kategoria ogólnopedagogiczna i dydaktyczna, In: M. Myszkowska-Litwa (ed.), Pedagogika ogólna a teoria i praktyka dydaktyczna. Kraków: Wyd. UJ. Hall B., and J. Lerner. 2009. The financing of R&D and innovation, NBER Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research. European Comission. 2014. Research and Innovation performance in the UE. Innovation Union progress at country level. http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2014/iuc_progress_report_2014.pdf. Euro-Case. 2002. Euro-Case Policy Paper on European Innovation Policy. http://www.euro-case.org/images/stories/pdf/platforms/Euro-CASE_Innovation-Platform-Paper.pdf. Kinsler, K., and M. Gamble. 2002. Reforming schools. New York: Continuum. Mayring, P. 2000. Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386. Nachmias, R., D. Mioduser, A. Cohen, D. Tubin, and A. Forkosh-Baruch. 2004. Factors Involved in the Implementation of Pedagogical Innovations Using Technology. Education and Information Technologies, 9 (3): 291–308. OECD. 2011. Building a High-Quality Teaching Profession: Lessons from around the World. Paris: OECD Publishing. Przyborowska, B. 2013. Pedagogika innowacyjności: między teorią a praktyką. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Raport o sytuacji edukacji elementarnej w Polsce. 2015. http://www.frd.org.pl/repository/upload/raport_o_sytuacji_edukacji_elementarnej.pdf. Szefler, E., and M. Sobieszczyk. 2000. Z działalności innowacyjnej nauczycieli klas młodszych : (sylwetki pedagogów wczesnoszkolnych - innowatorów z Bydgoszczy i byłego województwa bydgoskiego). WSP: Bydgoszcz. Varis, T. 2007. New technologies and innovation in higher education and regional development. Retrived from http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/4/2/dt/eng/varis.pdf. Vieluf, S., D. Kaplan, E. Klieme, and S. Bayer. 2012. Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Innovations Evidence from TALIS. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264123540-en Wong, E.M.L., S.S.C. Li, T.-H. Choi, and T.N. Lee. 2008. Insights into Innovative Classroom Practices with ICT: Identifying the Impetus for Change. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (1): 248-265. Zdybel, D. 2015. Pedagogical Innovations as a Part of Educational Policy in Poland – Trends and Prospects, IDE-Online Journal, 2 (2).

Author Information

Barbara Dudel (submitting)

University of Bialystok

Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology

Białystok

Marta Kowalczuk-Walędziak (presenting)

University of Bialystok, Poland

Małgorzata Głoskowska-Sołdatow